Picture “Abduction of Europe” Karl Cagliari, late 17th century is in the collection of Prince Paul Karadjordjevic in the court complex in Dedinje (unfortunately, far from the eyes of the audience).
A brief introduction concerning the choice of the title for this article: in the ancient myth, Zeus, disguised as a bull, kidnapped Europe and on his back is conveyed to Crete. Some parallels with the current relations between the US and Europe may be withdrawn. In Washington they still think they have “the role of Zeus,” the rest of the world are generally viewed as “bull”, they have a desire that the centre of decision-making of the EU shifts across the Atlantic to its territory, and the only thing left is for Europe climbed on their backs and for them to swim together.
Originally appeared at Fsksrb, translated by Igor exclusively for SouthFront
For euro-atlantics and neo-liberals, this would be the “choice for the civilization of Europe.” For the “traditional Europeans” and Eurasians, this is the “abduction of Europe”. A detailed description of the other. The key thing in the whole process should be an agreement on the transatlantic partnership, which will in the long run push the EU into the American sphere. The EU security today depends on NATO, and in the case of the Transatlantic Partnership, European countries would become economically and technologically dependent on the United States, to the extent that, in the global competition it would represented only the periphery of a new Euro-Atlantic continent. The people in the streets of Berlin didn’t demonstrate for nothing, a quarter of a million Germans demanded from Angela Merkel to suspend all further negotiations on the transatlantic partnership.
Why is the geopolitics of Washington’s “Abduction of Europe” one of the priorities? Even without its own military forces, still dependent on NATO, the EU has started to become increasingly independent economically. It is not just Germany, but in the United States are most concerned about the Germans. After the visit of the Chinese President to London, it is evident that the United Kingdom is completely positioning itself differently. After all, London he announced several months ago, when Britain joined the Asian infrastructure-investment bank (AIIB), while the USA has exerted great pressure on all European countries not to.
A separate chapter is the question of energy security. Europe is already criss-crossed by pipelines that are connected to Russia and built a “Nord Stream” and the eventual re actualization of “South Stream” (or beginning construction of, “the Turkish stream”), European countries are entering into a strategic partnership with Moscow. And from a strategic partnership come agreed strategic objectives. If things turned out this way, NATO would probably not exist in today’s format in the next two decades. Through increasing economic independence and resolve energy issues in our strategic partnership with Russia, Europe would come up with previously talked about Eurocorps and / or EUFOR, which would completely replace NATO (not to be used only for peacekeeping missions in Chad, the Central African Republic and BiH).
For the US the lines are drawn by which it must move through its political actions. In a first step, to prevent the construction of new energy corridors to connect the EU with Russia. Then, in the long run to prevent strategic alliance of European countries with Russia. Finally, do everything in order to promptly come to the signing of the Transatlantic Partnership. Because of these things, they have not only prevented the construction of the “South Stream”, but pressing euro bureaucracy prompted the adoption of the so-called Third Energy Package, in the future to be able to act in any activity of Russia in this direction. Because of the second induced crisis in Ukraine and the “forced” to join the EU in a meaningless political-economic war with Russia. With this they would finally secure their position with the new agreement, which would get a number of mechanisms that affect the European countries. And then the United Kingdom would not be able to enter into AIIB nor the Queen in London receive Xi Jinping.
However, a delay in the implementation of this plan has been circumstantial. In world politics there is a a new balance of power. It can not be hidden. In a large extent influenced and impeded the Great Depression in 2008.
This is why the migrants were activated. According to the latest UN report, one can see that this is a problem for Europe. Today, Europe has 738 million inhabitants, and Africa 1.186 billion. It is estimated that in 2050 Europe will have 707 million people, Africa 2,478 billion. Today, among the 10 countries with the largest population, only one is African (Nigeria with 182 million). It is estimated that by 2050 will be three (along with Nigeria, and another DR Congo and Ethiopia) and in 2100 five (plus Tanzania and Niger). Among the countries in which least gives birth to children (meaning number of children per woman) among the top 10, five are European, and from 2045 it will already be six. On the other hand, among the top ten countries in which most children are born, only one non-African-East Timor in ninth place. Mass migration is a long-term threat to Europe. But to make this process begin, it was necessary to destabilize the countries of the Near East and the Maghreb. Hence, everything that happens in Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Chad …
That this process continues, the evidence is and incredible campaign in the Western media that followed the overthrow of the Russian passenger aircraft in Egypt. Just when I started to hope that Syria can stabilize thanks to a Russian military support to Bashar Assad, began the process of (re) destabilization of Egypt. Convincing the world public that Egypt is unsafe, and that the units of the Islamic countries could shoot down passenger planes will leave this country with much-needed foreign currency inflows from tourism. The Egyptian government already struggling with filling the budget, and now it will become impossible. Syria is going to stabilize, but in Egypt we see completely opposite tendencies. And these opposing tendencies announce that despite the stabilization of Syria, we can expect new waves of migrants to Europe. First Egypt, then from Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia, when the Egyptian army no longer be more able to defend its southern border.
By activating the migrant crisis, the US made clear that Europe can choose between peripherization and destabilization. With the current anemic foreign and security policy, the EU can befall both. Finally, acceptance of the Transatlantic Partnership, Europe will be periferizovana; a proliferation of xenophobia and without a clear foreign policy response to the migrant crisis, to internal destabilization will definitely come (Alexander Rar says that now Germany is no longer the same country). Nevertheless, European countries the issue of energy security will have to deal with importing liquefied gas from the United States, at a price that is three times higher than the Russian natural gas, which will make its economy totally uncompetitive.
Migrants are blackmailing the EU to further spoil its relations with Russia in order to avoid the suspension of all bilateral energy package and with the ultimate aim to form a new transatlantic partnership of Atlantic integration. We are witnessing the “Kidnapping of Europe” and sealing her fate.
Everything else is stated in a series of analyses and is probably true, but less significantly. The reaction is still determined by the main goal, not a peripheral consequences. Now, for the European countries to trace lines on which you should move. Support Russia in resolving the Syrian crisis is no longer enough. The story of “migrant quotas”, the wires and the revival of the “Dublin system” is just meaningless. It is necessary to help the government of Abdel Fatah al-Sisi in Cairo write off “the Kiev clowns” and directed the Ukrainian conflict towards a sustainable solution in agreement with Russia, and finally again put on the table the issue of building new energy corridor. In parallel, we should not allow a new destabilization of the Balkans (as part of the Great Middle East), which is already in the announcement (about it is something spoken and Angela Merkel). Therefore, the burden of migrant crisis simply can not switch on the Balkan countries, but they must not accelerate processes that can lead to new shocks (changes in Dayton, new interpretations of the Ohrid Agreement, the attempts of legitimization of the status of the so-called. Republic of Kosovo in international politics, and so on.) in which the migrant issue will get a brand new dimension.
By all so far seen, migrants are only a tool in the geopolitical struggle in which the long-term resolve the fate of Europe. The stakes are high for all parties involved in this.